IN THE MATTER OF: MEAKER-SMITH LIVING TRUST

25PR000243: IN THE MATTER OF: MEAKER-SMITH LIVING TRUST 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Petitioner's First Amended Petiton in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

RESPONDENTS GEORGE FARNSWORTH AND RONALD SMITH’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PETITIONER’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR: 1) BREACH OF TRUST AND ABUSE OF DISCRETION 2) ORDER DETERMINING OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY

MOTION FILED: 9/9/2025

RE: In re the The Meaker-Smith Trust

MOVING PARTIES: George Farnsworth and Ben Smith, co-trustees of the Smith Living Trust Attorney: Danielle Nafekh (Downey Brand), 916-444-1000

RESPONDING PARTY: Janelle Pasco, beneficiary Attorney: Sarah Cullen, (916) 404-2730

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-

25PR000243: IN THE MATTER OF: MEAKER-SMITH LIVING TRUST 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Petitioner's First Amended Petiton in Department 129

Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Moving parties and co-trustees George Farnsworth and Ben Smith’s (“Co-Trustees”) demurrer to Petitioner Janelle Pasco’s (“Petitioner”) First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED as follows.

On 1/24/25, Respondent filed a petition for order to confirm validity of trust, to confirm trustee, to confirm trust assets, and to compel an account. On 7/23/25, Respondent filed a first amended petition for breach of trust and abuse of discretion, and for an order determining ownership of real property. Respondent maintains that Co-Trustee exceeded the trust authority under the provision that permits Co-Trustee Smith to use trust assets for Co-Trustee’s health, education, maintenance, and support (“HEDS”) when he executed a trust transfer deed of real property. Thus, Respondent seeks an order determining ownership of property transferred out of the trust.

Defendants now demur to both causes of action of the First Amended Petition under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10(e), on the grounds that Respondent failed to provide facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Respondent opposed, arguing that sufficient facts are alleged to demonstrate the allegation of breach of trust by Co-Trustee Smith, and further alleges sufficient facts to seek an order determining ownership of various trust assets.

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be sustained if “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.)

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR000243: IN THE MATTER OF: MEAKER-SMITH LIVING TRUST 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Petitioner's First Amended Petiton in Department 129

Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “[A p]laintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Here, the Co-Trustees assert that Petitioner has not alleged sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The Co-Trustees assert that because he has “absolute authority” under the trust section 6.04 regarding the maintenance of Co-Trustee Smith’s HEDS benefits, Respondent’s First Amended Petition does not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a breach.

Petitioner alleges sufficient facts to support a cause of action of breach of trust. Again, for purposes of a demurrer, Petitioner "need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan, supra, 77 Cal.App.3d at p. 696-697.) Petitioner alleges that Co-Trustee became the primary beneficiary entitled to HEDS benefits on April 17, 2024 upon the death of the first settlor.

Petitioner alleges that upon the death of the first settlor, she had a remainder beneficiary interest in the trust as to one real property asset. Respondent further alleges that the asset in question, real property located at 115 Black Gold Lane, Folsom, CA 95630, was improperly deeded to Co-Trustee via trust transfer deed on 9/25/19. This is sufficient to show that Petitioner may be entitled to some relief. Further, Petitioner seeks an order determining ownership of the real property at issue.

Petitioner has

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR000243: IN THE MATTER OF: MEAKER-SMITH LIVING TRUST 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Petitioner's First Amended Petiton in Department 129

alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate she may be entitled to this relief.

Thus, the demurrer is OVERRULED on both grounds.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)